Some set ups availible for AA50


  • 2017 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10


  • '10

    WOW!  Thanks!  Looks like the CHINA set-up for 1941 is just as slim as we discussed.



  • Interesting, America starts with a bomber in the UK in the 1942 setup, that gives them 3 to start with for that setup, very interesting. Thanks IL for another great find. 🙂

    Cannot wait for the Axis set-ups. :evil:



  • Is it just me or does China in 1942 look a lot stronger than in 1941?
    It seems to me 4 inf + fighter,  is alot weaker than 8 inf + 1 fighter (the fighter is now protected by 2).

    I don’t see how in 1 turn china can go from 4 => 8. Most likely it will go from 4 => 0. Unless of course the Japanese set up is wrong =P


  • 2017 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    actually they have 9 infantry in 1942.



  • I wonder how many other changes there will be from the BGG pics, to the actual setups. Especially in Europe and the med.


  • 2017 '16 '15 Organizer '14 Customizer '13 '12 '11 '10

    I think the Soviets would have more fighters and possibly bombers in 1942.

    Germany should have 2 bombers at least in 1941


  • 2007 AAR League

    It seems like the Setup for US in 1941 was actually correct then…
    Anyhow, for you who couldn’t be bothered to read through all those setup charts, I’ve mapped up the setup in Abattlemap files.

    Now updated with the following country setups:

    • US/China

    AA50-41_US.AAM
    AA50-42_US.AAM


  • 2007 AAR League

    I got to say that I was quite surprised to see the US/China setups…Especially those for -41.
    I don’t expect much news from the Soviet setup, but at least I hope that Japan & UK has some tweaks, from the setups that we knew earlier.



  • What does it mean: Yunnan: 1 infantry, 1 fighter (US). It means that the fighter is owned by the US? So China does not have any own fighters?


  • 2007 AAR League

    @Subotai:

    What does it mean: Yunnan: 1 infantry, 1 fighter (US). It means that the fighter is owned by the US? So China does not have any own fighters?

    Hmmmm…
    It sure seems like it is owned by the US, and if that is the case, then the ftr can’t help any chinese units on attack (since China & US has different Combat Movement phases AFAIK).

    China is truly hosed in the -41 setup  😄



  • As we were told, the gencon setup was not correct, but it was not much different from the real setup, according to C. Yope.

    I’m curious to know the differences in Europe, will axis get more units, or do we need a big axis bid to balance it out?


  • 2007 AAR League

    Subotai -
    you & me are maybe holding opposite beliefs here …
    I played three games of AA50 (41 scen), using the Gencon setup. We found that the AXIS held the advantage, not the Allies…
    Of course three games between the same two players doesn’t give enough information as to wheter the game is balanced or not. But we sure had a hard time handling Japan & Germany both at 50+ IPC after round 3… 🙂

    EDIT: No, make that, after round 2, btw



  • @Perry:

    Subotai -
    you & me are maybe holding opposite beliefs here …

    You are from Sweden, arent you?  :roll: :roll: 😄

    Let me guess, you didn’t go all out KGF? And you were playing with tech, which means that you cannot judge game balance if playing with tech, this has been confirmed by the official play testers.

    I have also played with the gencon setup, without NOs/tech, allies had BIG advantage, but the triplea map did have some inaccuracy, allies got bonus ipc at the start of the game, which they shouldnt.

    IL must change the AA50 fact sheet, in the 41 scenario, US starts with 40 ipc.


  • 2007 AAR League

    Yeah, if we’re talking w/o NO’s, then I’m with you - hands down!
    We played tech - but I don’t think that it had an actual impact.

    However, wheter or not to do NO’s, is of course huge…

    Maybe a no tech, no NO game, Axis definitely need a bid….

    What about:

    • Each player bid how many NO’s he want in order to play the Axis…
    • NO’s are selectable after the bid is won…

    Can’t judge wheter or not this is a satisfactory bid system, but it would be interesting to test…



  • Why is China so less powerful in 1941? It looks like china will be a push over in the '41 scenerio. The '42 scenerio looks more like it. This setup for China makes me want to play the '42 scenerio more and I was really looking forward to the '41. You have to use national objectives I think too. The US less powerful in '42? The US is even less powerful than in revised. Yes, you lose the Phillipines but it the game doesn’t take any account of increased US production. I want a balanced game but it seems the US is always under powered. I will have to wait and play.



  • @Perry:

    Maybe a no tech, no NO game, Axis definitely need a bid….

    What about:

    • Each player bid how many NO’s he want in order to play the Axis…
    • NO’s are selectable after the bid is won…

    Can’t judge wheter or not this is a satisfactory bid system, but it would be interesting to test…

    I’m not really into (playing with) house rules, other than many of them are interesting in the context of discussing what we want AAR/AA50 to be like.
    I play online, not f2f, so the only house rule I’m using is no tech…

    As for bids, I think the bids are just fine as they are, almost all players using preplace bids. It could be interesting to play with cash only, I have never tried it so I don’t know how high bid is needed to balance AAR. As for AA50, we will have to wait and see. Even if Wotc should release all of the setup info at least now, there’s only 1 week left, some info is much better than no info.

    Can’t wait to know the Japan + German setup charts  🙂


  • 2007 AAR League

    Generally, I’m skeptic to house rules too, but I don’t view bidding as that kind of house rule, if you know what I mean…  😉

    So you think the standard 50/50 preplacement bid rule will prevail also in AA50?
    Well, I suppose chances are big that it will… It’s a system that is known to most people, and that is rather easy to explain.

    The number of threads on this site, concerning “How do bids work?”  (and god knows I’ve written a few myself  🙂 ), stands to prove that you need a rather simple & intuitive system in place, in order for it to be generally accepted & understood.


  • '10

    @Imperious:

    http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=17222181#post17222181

    check it out.

    Thanks detektive! 😉



  • It’s been a while since I discussed bids, how high and what kind. I’m playing in the TripleA lobby, and there almost all players use preplace bids, that means all units are preplaced, not 50/50. When you are playing via forum, you use half cash - half amount in units? I thought you also used 100% preplace bid, and only 1 unit pr TT.
    That rule if bid placement can be grouped is a minor one. I know good players have lost even if they placed 3 inf in Ukr….  :roll:

    I almost forgot this is the AA50 thread, not AAR  :lol:

    Wonder if ppl still will use all bids to Germany - Africa, and if the bids will difference from with or w/o NOs.
    I can’t imagine bids for allies, but I’m not 100% sure yet. The biggest question is if AA50 bids will be higher than AAR.


  • Official Q&A

    @Subotai:

    What does it mean: Yunnan: 1 infantry, 1 fighter (US). It means that the fighter is owned by the US? So China does not have any own fighters?

    No, it simply means that it’s a US fighter piece.  The fighter is controlled by China and moves and attacks with Chinese forces.



  • But if US brings in another fighter, that can under no circumstances be controlled by the chinese, right?


  • 2007 AAR League

    @Krieghund:

    No, it simply means that it’s a US fighter piece.  The fighter is controlled by China and moves and attacks with Chinese forces.

    OK, that statement made me slightly confused … Why isn’t it just a chinese ftr piece? If it is a US ftr piece you risk mixing it up with other US ftr pieces…

    Ok, I understand that the real-life unit was made up of US Nationals, but I still think it will confuse players more than clarify anything, don’t you think  :? :?


  • Official Q&A

    @Silent:

    But if US brings in another fighter, that can under no circumstances be controlled by the chinese, right?

    Correct, even if the original one is gone.


  • Official Q&A

    @Perry:

    @Krieghund:

    No, it simply means that it’s a US fighter piece.  The fighter is controlled by China and moves and attacks with Chinese forces.

    OK, that statement made me slightly confused … Why isn’t it just a chinese ftr piece? If it is a US ftr piece you risk mixing it up with other US ftr pieces…

    Ok, I understand that the real-life unit was made up of US Nationals, but I still think it will confuse players more than clarify anything, don’t you think  :? :?

    I’m sure that AH just didn’t want to go to the expense of including a single Chinese fighter piece in the game.  If it becomes a problem, I’m sure it will be easy to find a way to differentiate this fighter from US fighters, such as turning it upside down or marking it in some way.  My guess is that you won’t have both a Chinese and US fighter in China all that often, as the Chinese fighter tends to die early.


Log in to reply
 

20th Anniversary Give Away

In January 2000 this site came to life and now we're celebrating our 20th Anniversary with a prize giveaway of 30+ prizes. See this link for the list of prizes and winners.
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys
T-shirts, Hats, and More

Suggested Topics

  • 101
  • 4
  • 1
  • 10
  • 8
  • 6
  • 12
  • 30
I Will Never Grow Up Games
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures
Dean's Army Guys

63
Online

14.9k
Users

35.7k
Topics

1.5m
Posts